Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes (Website only) - April 27, 2017

203 posts in this topic

A cacher found a puzzle cache of mine today, logged a find with a needs maintenance canned note posted from the new logging page.

 

They expected someplace to enter the issue after selecting the option, but there was none. So they had to follow up with a message in the message center, and I'll have to follow up with a note on the cache page so others know the issue. This is not as intuitive as before and causes more work for caches and cache owners. Please allow people to edit the canned note.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am hoping that I will continue to have much of the old functionality by editing my logs from the profile page. That at least still has the markdown options and appears to let me add photos. I can only wonder what new "improvements" are in store for us. Groundspeak certainly is not telling us. Sometimes I play this game in spite of the company that runs it, in spite of their secrecy. But sometimes I wonder why.

Since the log edit page is the same as the old log creation page only with the information fields filled in, I doubt it'll remain in that form once the old log creation page is removed, particularly if part of the motivation for all this is to remove old code from the system. Perhaps "Edit Log" will then take us to a filled-in new-style log creation page, but how would that work for editing an NM or NA log which the new page doesn't support? Or maybe editing logs just won't be allowed, after all you can't do it in the app, can you?

0

Share this post


Link to post

A cacher found a puzzle cache of mine today, logged a find with a needs maintenance canned note posted from the new logging page.

 

They expected someplace to enter the issue after selecting the option, but there was none. So they had to follow up with a message in the message center, and I'll have to follow up with a note on the cache page so others know the issue. This is not as intuitive as before and causes more work for caches and cache owners. Please allow people to edit the canned note.

Just looked at your cache. If I was reading the cache page and considering looking for the cache, then I would be questioning whether to attempt this cache or not because there is no info at all about what type of problem might exist. Most NM logs I've seen from the 'old' logging page gave some indication of what the problem was, and I could make an informed decision about whether the problem was innocuous or not. Let's face it, some cachers post NM/NA logs when they're not needed. With the 'new' logging page, if a cacher says the problem is 'Other', then cachers looking at the cache page will have no idea - unless the CO adds a Write Note log to the cache page (an extra log entry on the page) after communicating separately with the cacher that logged the NM.

 

The ability to add detail to an NM/NA selection is an important aspect. Experienced cachers that know their NM/NA selection creates a separate log entry on the cache page can go through the extra steps to edit their log and add details. But new cachers may not realize that selecting an NM/NA 'canned response' creates a separate log entry, so they likely won't know that they can (or even should) add details. I find this very unfortunate.

 

The date field on the Trackable page has now been updated. It is set based on the Date Format you have selected in your Preferences.

Thanks for the quick fix.

 

If you have a chance to make a few formatting edits, then my OCD tendencies will be satisfied:

-- Adding a colon after "Logged on" on the TB page, since cache pages show "Logged on:"

-- Capitalizing "it" on the TB page, since cache pages use Title Case ("Found It", "Did Not Find", "Will Attend").

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just looked at your cache. If I was reading the cache page and considering looking for the cache, then I would be questioning whether to attempt this cache or not because there is no info at all about what type of problem might exist.

...

 

The ability to add detail to an NM/NA selection is an important aspect. Experienced cachers that know their NM/NA selection creates a separate log entry on the cache page can go through the extra steps to edit their log and add details.

...

 

A very good point, and sadly even though we CAN go back and edit the NM/NA logs many people just won't bother and we're all then on the slippery slope to the bottom.

 

 

Not being able to post a descritption to the NM/NA logs is detrimental to the game - please change it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

It beggars belief that what we are expected to beta test is a massive backwards step from what we add and that most of the issues being identified come down to very basic common sense.

Edited by Team Microdot
0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe as a protest everyone should go and log a "Other" NM log on the HQ cache, and let them figure out what the "Other" problem is.

 

:ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems telling to me that Lackys have been responding on this thread to issues that could be considered "technical" in nature (page load times, date format settings bugs, mistakes in release notes, etc.) Those are tactical issues, and easy for an "engineer type" to address (I know, I am one of those)

 

But there are no responses to the "why" comments.

 

Why is this being done? The overwhelming response from the community is that we don't like it, and if you think you can just write that off as "yeah, well, people don't like change", then I can tell you that is completely wrong. Users want improvement. And this is not improvement. And we see no good reason why it's being done.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems telling to me that Lackys have been responding on this thread to issues that could be considered "technical" in nature (page load times, date format settings bugs, mistakes in release notes, etc.) Those are tactical issues, and easy for an "engineer type" to address (I know, I am one of those)

 

But there are no responses to the "why" comments.

 

Why is this being done? The overwhelming response from the community is that we don't like it, and if you think you can just write that off as "yeah, well, people don't like change", then I can tell you that is completely wrong. Users want improvement. And this is not improvement. And we see no good reason why it's being done.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

Please, Groundspeak: I have no problem with optical or UX "improvements" on the website, even if I don't see them as improvements. In the end, I'm going to get used to it. But what I, and many others, don't understand, is, why are perfectly working and useful features removed for apparently no other reason because they are, in your view, "distracting"? I simply don't get it! Anyway, just in case you're determined to keep the "new logging" essentially as it is now: Please keep at least some work-arounds for the "professionals" ;) !

- Keep markdown enabled, even if one has to know all the formatting by head

- Keep a possibility to add multiple photos, incl. captions, to a log

- Keep the option to edit the boilerplate NM/NA logs after they have been posted

Could you do that? PLEASE? Thank you :) !

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

A single remark from me: The new logging page doesn't seem to work at all when the default setting of the language of the site is Dutch ( Nederlands)

Edited by Sivota
0

Share this post


Link to post

We tried to log in the new page but on our MacOs computer with Safari the screen kept grey and nothing could be chosen and no text could be added. We were glad we could choose the old way of logging instead.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just one thing I don't like about the new logging page when converting drafts in full logs: after each log it opens the cachepage of the log you just wrote. I don't understand the logic of this and it's absolutely not handy when you have a whole bunch of drafts to log.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A single remark from me: The new logging page doesn't seem to work at all when the default setting of the language of the site is Dutch ( Nederlands)

 

This should be resolved now, thank you for letting us know!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Was going to log Will Attend now, and Attended was selected as default. The event is in June. I though Attended was removed until the day of the event. Am I remembering wrong, or was that app only? The event is a CITO event, if that makes any difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
You can file me under that category too, as well as many of the long-time cachers in my area. I always log from my desktop, which logically would be the same for the vast majority of those who log through the website. Tailoring the website to smartphone usage just seems nutty to me. It would be like tailoring a smartphone app to look good when run in an emulator on a desktop. That isn't how the product is being used, so it just doesn't make sense to tailor it to that platform.

I have no problem with a website being tailored for mobile use - that is quite common now - but not at the expense of desktop use, especially for highly functional websites (not just flyer sites and informational hubs). gc.com is functional - and on the desktop it's slowly losing its functional user-friendliness in favour of mobile design. This it not a good thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Why can't I expand the text box manually? That is the simplest thing!!! You took that out on purpose too.

 

Why does it say "Logging has a new look", when nobody in these threads seems to care one bit about the look, but rather the lost functionality? To be truth in advertising, it should say "Logging has less functionality", or "Logging is simpler than ever", or "Logging is dumbed down."

 

Why does the popup for Needs Maintenance miss the opportunity to clarify, that this is to report that the cache needs maintenance. Instead it just says "This geocache needs maintenance" (clarifying only what's already obvious, and even if it's an event), leaving it still ambiguous. What, is this page telling me something about this cache, and how does that affect my sending this log? It's an input, but it looks like an indicator.

 

I could go on, but I'm trying to keep it to stuff that (I think) hasn't already been reported. So much wrong with such a small amount of UI, amazing.

Edited by Viajero Perdido
0

Share this post


Link to post

Why are Groundspeak doing this? Ie. moving towards a mobile only interface?

 

1) They want to reduce the costs of having different UI to support?

This might be offset by users quitting premium membership or quitting hiding caches due to not receiving feedback other than TFTC

 

2) They want to make geocaching as streamlined as e.g. munzee is, where the logging is usually only an automatic "capped it" and nothing more.

This would also reduce the amount of clever/nice hides, because of the non-existing positive feedback.

 

3) Some other reason?

If they would tell us, maybe we could offer some acceptable solutions. I bet the community has a lot of know-how about web and mobile app designs and most importantly they are using the systems!

 

Just wondering if it is worth while to list my next cache?

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are many things going on with this new logging page that I would consider to be a huge step backwards from the old logging page. Most of the points I've found have been brought up by others.

But I have to mention the two biggest items for me that change it from "bad" to "opt me out ASAP":

 

1) I can upload ONE photo. And on that one photo I cannot add a caption or description. My geocaching adventures cannot be appropriately documented with one uncaptioned photo. And a lot of the fun of geocaching for me is writing out my adventures and reading other's stories and looking at all their photos.

I tried selecting multiple images to upload at once and I got an error message saying I can only upload one photo at once. But then I let that one photo upload and I tried to upload another... and couldn't figure out how to do it.

 

2) The canned maintenance logs are not helpful for cache owners. More detail is needed to appropriately respond to an issue. How will cache owners know what action to take unless the issue is explicitly detailed?

Likewise, the canned maintenance logs are awful for geocachers who are trying to report a detailed issue to a cache owner.

Even further, the canned maintenance logs aren't helpful for geocachers who want to find a cache. Unspecified maintenance issues could be anything. Is a cache that was logged with an unspecified issue worth my time to look for, or is it only a petty issue like 'the pencil inside the cache needs sharpening'? There's no way to tell.

 

These two points are the big deal-breakers for me, but I do agree with almost all of the other issues brought up by other posters here.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with most of the complaints that other people have made, and I have one more to add:

 

The text that I type in the new log page is grey (RGB 74,74,74), which makes it hard for my old eyes to read. In the old log page, it was black (RGB 0,0,0), which is easier to read. Contrast is good; black text on a white background is best.

 

I've noticed similar greyness elsewhere on the site, and in some places it's even worse: In the Send Email to a User page, it's an even lighter grey (RGB 126,125,122), so I always have to compose my messages in TextEdit and then copy and paste them to gc.com.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I posted the below in the older release thread. Reposting here where it belongs:

 

The log page is a bit slower to bring up than the old one. I measure a pretty consistent 3400ms on the new page vs 2200ms on the old page. It's a bit unsatisfying to see the spinning circle while the page is loading resources or doing some ajaxy thing. Will performance measurements be taken and acted on? Thanks!

At least you get a result after 3400ms. For me the spinning circle just stays there and I can't do anything

 

Windows 7

firefox 53.0 (32-bits)

 

Thanks for letting us know - we've received other reports of this as well. We're looking into this now and will provide a status update as soon as possible.

It is fixed now (I assume this had something to do with the application not working for other languages).

Now I have the same problem as ChileHead..loading a log page is reaaaaaaaalllllllyyyyyy sssssssllllllllllloooooooowwwww

0

Share this post


Link to post

Do I understand correctly that I can't log an other nm or na with a found log? I've used this combination several times before, for example signing the log and noticing the birds nest right next to it, being chased away by angry land owner after finding, etc. There's always a reason to use certain log combinations.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Do I understand correctly that I can't log an other nm or na with a found log? I've used this combination several times before, for example signing the log and noticing the birds nest right next to it, being chased away by angry land owner after finding, etc. There's always a reason to use certain log combinations.

 

You can, but you will have to go back and edit the boilerplate text that was created after you submit your find in order for it to be useful to the cache owner or reviewer.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A single remark from me: The new logging page doesn't seem to work at all when the default setting of the language of the site is Dutch ( Nederlands)

 

This should be resolved now, thank you for letting us know!

 

It's working now. Thank you :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems telling to me that Lackys have been responding on this thread to issues that could be considered "technical" in nature (page load times, date format settings bugs, mistakes in release notes, etc.) Those are tactical issues, and easy for an "engineer type" to address (I know, I am one of those)

 

But there are no responses to the "why" comments.

 

Why is this being done? The overwhelming response from the community is that we don't like it, and if you think you can just write that off as "yeah, well, people don't like change", then I can tell you that is completely wrong. Users want improvement. And this is not improvement. And we see no good reason why it's being done.

If you ever notice, lackeys seem to post when teensy, less important items are addressed. You'll rarely see any response when customers pose concerns or have questions about the more important issues.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Today I'm logging using the (new? beta?) interface despite not liking it at all.

 

After I've uploaded a photograph to my log the Post button remains unavailable / greyed out for a large portion of a minute before I'm able to click on it. I haven't been able to work out why that is or what action on my part, if there is one, might cause it to become available and thus clickable.

 

I had thought that moving the cursor back to the body text of my log caused the button to become available but on trying that again it didn't work so now I'm at a complete loss.

 

I noticed also that while that button is greyed out, so is the thumbnail of the image I've just uploaded - are those two things connected?

 

Disappointed again to discover that the upload another image link that used to be on the page when I'd just uploaded an image seems to have been removed, forcing me to click back through to my log and add any more images I want to add from there. What's the point of this? Groundspeak trying to cut down on disk space consumed by making the adding of images to one's log a more arduous task?

0

Share this post


Link to post

So I repeated the process and did NOTHING after uploading my image.

 

The image thumbnail and the Post button stayed greyed out for around ten seconds and then both became un-greyed together.

 

I would say this is not dissimilar to the time taken to upload an image file using the non-beta version of the logging process but can't put the delay down to the process of the image being uploaded because the thumbnail becomes visible (although greyed out) pretty much immediately.

 

It's a bit of a mystery but it is a little bit annoying to have to pause for 10 seconds before being able to submit a log.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It seems a bit daft that the beta interface has these canned NM log narratives :unsure:

 

I can add detail or override the canned text completely if I want to by editing but it just seems like more hoops to jump through.

 

I can only conclude that whomever came up with this is thinking from the perspective of an app user who isn't likely to submit any detail with their NM log but, frankly, the canned narratives are probably going to be as much use as a poke in the eye with a pointy stick to the CO in many cases.

 

If the idea is that people are supposed to include the NM detail in their regular log (Found It / DNF) then the NM log may as well be binned completely.

 

In fact the more I think about it, the more there isn't an elegant solution to loggers unwilling or unable to provide information that's useful to the CO in whatever log they post so if it has to be canned text then there needs to be more options to select from.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I will add my name to the list of people who don't like the changes. It looks nice enough the way it is, but know a lot of functionality is now missing. Please try to get the other missing stuff back into the log page before you make this change permanent.

 

I do have a suggestion for the needs maintenance flag. If someone selects "needs to be archived" or "other" as the reason, instead of posting a canned message that is worthless, the have the page load to another log entry page. "Thank you for notifying us that this cache needs maintenance. Please explain the problem below so the cache owner can fix the problem as quickly as possible." This would streamline the process and would be an easy improvement over the previous process.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

It seems telling to me that Lackys have been responding on this thread to issues that could be considered "technical" in nature (page load times, date format settings bugs, mistakes in release notes, etc.) Those are tactical issues, and easy for an "engineer type" to address (I know, I am one of those)

 

But there are no responses to the "why" comments.

 

Why is this being done? The overwhelming response from the community is that we don't like it, and if you think you can just write that off as "yeah, well, people don't like change", then I can tell you that is completely wrong. Users want improvement. And this is not improvement. And we see no good reason why it's being done.

If you ever notice, lackeys seem to post when teensy, less important items are addressed. You'll rarely see any response when customers pose concerns or have questions about the more important issues.

 

This is truly embarrassing.

 

I have wordier reaction on my mind, but I opt not to write it down, because I had just one glass of fine wine yet.

And I still hope they'll fix major issues related with damaged communication flow swiftly. Too many people (basicaly all cache owners) will be wasting too much time in new process, if it won't be fixed.

 

(Sayin' as a person who normally embraces changes and still thinks this is a step forward - but not mature enough to all its important consequences.)

Edited by Rikitan
0

Share this post


Link to post

Do I understand correctly that I can't log an other nm or na with a found log? I've used this combination several times before, for example signing the log and noticing the birds nest right next to it, being chased away by angry land owner after finding, etc. There's always a reason to use certain log combinations.

 

You can, but you will have to go back and edit the boilerplate text that was created after you submit your find in order for it to be useful to the cache owner or reviewer.

 

I can, because I know it's possible. But will the average cacher know who isn't curious enough to dive into the workings of the website? For this, quite honestly, it might actually prevent people from posting NM and NA simply because they cannot leave a meaningful log for it. I'm not impressed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In addition to all the missing features, the new logging page has a serious reliability issue! I'm currently trying to write 23 logs from today via the drafts. The first 10 or so logs went smoothly. But now I often have to re-load the page 3 or 4 times, because the "wait indicator" either doesn't stop spinning, or it stops but the fields stay disabled anyway. This makes the logging really tedious. And by logging via the "Compose" link in drafts, I cannot even "opt out".

 

System: Win 7 with Chrome 58.0.3029.81

0

Share this post


Link to post

In addition to all the missing features, the new logging page has a serious reliability issue! I'm currently trying to write 23 logs from today via the drafts. The first 10 or so logs went smoothly. But now I often have to re-load the page 3 or 4 times, because the "wait indicator" either doesn't stop spinning, or it stops but the fields stay disabled anyway. This makes the logging really tedious. And by logging via the "Compose" link in drafts, I cannot even "opt out".

 

System: Win 7 with Chrome 58.0.3029.81

 

I have a growing list of pending Drafts that won't be logged for a while. Sorry CO's. Yes, I had a lot of fun finding your caches, and I really do appreciate you hiding them. But you won't be hearing about it for a while, not until I'm able to complete these logs in a way that doesn't make me feel like I'm being punished.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have looked everywhere on a new log page and cannot find the place to log "markdown/smileys." Can somebody please tell me where that is, exactly, on the new log page??

0

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are so confident you're doing the right thing. I see that opting out is done via a session cookie, meaning you have to opt out every day for the rest of your caching career (ahem), or finally give in.

 

Opting out should be a permanent cookie please. Or even better, stored in preferences on the Groundspeak servers so that you, Groundspeak, can see in aggregate how many people are opting out. It might be useful to know.

 

I totally agree with the above recommendation. Please make the "opt out" of the new cache logging screen a User Profile setting so the opt Out will be permanent by user.

0

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are so confident you're doing the right thing. I see that opting out is done via a session cookie, meaning you have to opt out every day for the rest of your caching career (ahem), or finally give in.

 

Opting out should be a permanent cookie please. Or even better, stored in preferences on the Groundspeak servers so that you, Groundspeak, can see in aggregate how many people are opting out. It might be useful to know.

 

I totally agree with the above recommendation. Please make the "opt out" of the new cache logging screen a User Profile setting so the opt Out will be permanent by user.

Did you read the original post in this thread? Opting out is only an interim thing and will soon be gone, making this and the app the only way to log caches.

Additionally, you will have the option of returning to the old logging page when creating a new log for a period of time.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

For some reason I've never been able to fathom, submitting a log through the old logging page would frequently fail on a mobile device if it took me too long to key in the log (which is most of the time). I got used to this and once it became apparent that the log submission was going to fail I could select and copy my log text, refresh the page, paste the complete log into the dialog and resubmit. This rigmarole worked to get the log submitted 95% of the time when the first submission failed.

 

Today I had occasion to submit a log over the mobile network, using the new log page. The inevitable happened and the page sat there with the Whirligig of Doom whizzing around but now, with this new page, I can't select & copy the text before refreshing the page. I have to resort to keying the log again, with the same submission failure, and the same end result. After two attempts I gave up and logged the details at home.

 

This submission problem occurs reliably (>90%) using mobile data, but I've never seen it when connected to WiFi. Being unable to copy and select the log text after the Send button has been pressed occurs all the time on the new page.

 

Samsung Galaxy S5, Android 6.0.1, Chrome 57.0.2987.132

 

Please don't suggest I use the new app instead. (There's enough wrong with that already, including logs that don't show up for hours.) Mostly I use field notes on my GPS and complete the logs at home, or I use a third-party app. Sometimes the most appropriate tool for the job is (was) the web site. Not any more, it seems.

Edited by gasbottle
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Ok, today i have to log with the new website. Let's see, if there is any improvement:

Pro:

modern style

easy to handle, because there are no more options

 

Cons/you have to work on:

It is less log-friendly due to one more click to open the trackables section (I wouldn't log any TB from now on, just to save time)

One file upload - somethimes one image is not enough

A high number of TBs create a longer list. Each TB takes more space.

 

Other Regulations:

How to log old Locationless Geocaches twice, which are now listed as Mystery (yes, there are only a few, but some other rare Geocaches are still existing too)

 

Ok to sum it all up, atm there is no major imporvement and I would prefer the old website over the new one. But if you make your homework and solve those cons, the new page could become more favorable.

Greetings from Germany

Adler 12

Edited by Adler 12
0

Share this post


Link to post

Help, Geocaching app crashing. I've updated my phone and it doesn't say the app needs an update. I try to open the app it waits a minute and then closes. What can I do?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Help, Geocaching app crashing. I've updated my phone and it doesn't say the app needs an update. I try to open the app it waits a minute and then closes. What can I do?

Considering this thread is about the recent updates to the website only, you probably should post this in a different thread, or start your own.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I won't comment on the changes as it is my impression it would just fall on deaf ears.

 

I will instead say that comparisons to the rollout of the new search are not valid. The dying down of those complaints is at least in part because the old search is still available. I, for one, use the old search almost exclusively. The only time I use the new search is if I already know the exact GC number, which is rare.

 

Just making the point that you can't infer satisfaction with changes just because feedback slows or disappears. It could also mean your customer has just given up. While that may not mean much on any given issue, the cumulative affect could well prove unfortunate for your business model.

 

JMHO,

Mrs. Car54

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just making the point that you can't infer satisfaction with changes just because feedback slows or disappears. It could also mean your customer has just given up. While that may not mean much on any given issue, the cumulative affect could well prove unfortunate for your business model.

I'll second that as a big concern.

 

To add:

Having just logged a few caches from yesterday, I noticed that there was a popup in the browser footer asking me to rate the new logging page and provide comments.

Presumably this little feature is available (at least once?) to every user, or maybe a wide swath of randomly selected users... hopefully it's used well and effectively; but at the same time I hope it's not used exclusively to gauge the benefits and drawbacks of the system, as there are quite a number of good/constructive feedback points in this thread alone (even though it's undeniably a tiny segment of the general populace).

0

Share this post


Link to post

Having just logged a few caches from yesterday, I noticed that there was a popup in the browser footer asking me to rate the new logging page and provide comments.

Presumably this little feature is available (at least once?) to every user, or maybe a wide swath of randomly selected users... hopefully it's used well and effectively; but at the same time I hope it's not used exclusively to gauge the benefits and drawbacks of the system, as there are quite a number of good/constructive feedback points in this thread alone (even though it's undeniably a tiny segment of the general populace).

Seems typical. Is anyone that opts out of the new page going to see a popup on the page asking for feedback about the page?

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

0

Share this post


Link to post

Having just logged a few caches from yesterday, I noticed that there was a popup in the browser footer asking me to rate the new logging page and provide comments.

Presumably this little feature is available (at least once?) to every user, or maybe a wide swath of randomly selected users... hopefully it's used well and effectively; but at the same time I hope it's not used exclusively to gauge the benefits and drawbacks of the system, as there are quite a number of good/constructive feedback points in this thread alone (even though it's undeniably a tiny segment of the general populace).

Seems typical. Is anyone that opts out of the new page going to see a popup on the page asking for feedback about the page?

FYI here is the survey link I was provided after submitting a log via the new logging page:

LOGGING BETA SURVEY

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

I understand completely why a new logging page is being developed. But personally I have no idea why so many features from the old page have been (perhaps intentionally?) left out. Will all these features return in an improved form with new code? If so, fantastic! I can think of many ways the old logging page could be improved with new code! I know that could take some time so maybe that's one reason many features have been excluded in the beta form of the new logging page. But please keep the old logging page up and running until the functionality of the new one is improved to better the old one!

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've already expressed my arguments against the fundamental change to how NMs are entered, but it just occurred to me that posting NAs is now just plain silly. In my experience, posting an NA normally doesn't involve visiting GZ, so it's rare for me to post an NA with either a find or a DNF. That means with the new system, I'm going to have to post a note for no reason other than as a backdoor way to post the NA.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In case you missed it, we outlined a few reasons why we created a new logging page in the blog post. Below is an excerpt, you can read the entire post here. Thank you for continuing to share your feedback!

 

“We know that change has been prevalent here at HQ lately, and that it is not always easy. Now in our 17th year, we are addressing some growing pains that only come with being a game nearly two decades old. Namely, old code. Much of the website is unable to support the features today’s geocachers want and need, such as adding a favorite point and photo to a draft on Geocaching.com.

Building a new logging page allows us to incorporate more robust features, respond faster to your feedback and any problems, localize our content to reach more geocachers, fix timezone issues, and make Geocaching.com mobile responsive. “

 

Bolded for emphasis.... based upon feedback here in the forums, I think the update has missed the mark.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not reading all the posts because they are all over the place. I haven't logged anything after April 27 till today. The two issues I have is uploading photos kept failing and where can you enter better coords? For the photos I had to wait till I logged them and then went back and edit to add the photos.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

I didn't have the chance to comment about the "Lists" The only issue I have with that is "Where is the Watchlist" I don't see it unless I go back to the old version.

Edited by jellis
0

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. Supporting two separate Logging methods (or Search functionality) forever just doesn't make sense.

 

I disagree: Creating a new logging method while the excising one works fine doesn't make sense.

 

When the "New Search" first came out, a lot of people had some major issues with it (much of it, because it was poorly documented and non-intuitive) but most of those issues have been addressed and I suspect that fewer and fewer people are using the old search page. At some point it should be retired so that GS developers can backup the code and never have to look at it again.

 

I still use it, and hope the old fast and compact search results stay.

 

Tc

0

Share this post


Link to post

As I promised last week, I used the new logging page to convert my Field Notes/Drafts to logs on the weekend. Here are my findings:

  • The lack of timestamps on the Drafts page made it difficult to match photos to logs. I had to rely on the raw geocache_visits.txt file from my GPSr and convert the UTC times to PDT in my head. We've already been told that the timestamps will soon be returning, so I can live with this for now.
  • Not only do photos uploaded to backdated logs still not inherit the log's date by default, they now don't even get today's date, but rather they get today's date plus one day. When I uploaded the photos on April 30th, the photos were dated May 1st. They should have been dated April 29th (the date of the log).
  • The lack of caption support meant I had to upload the photo and submit my log, then immediately go to the log I just created, edit it, and edit the photo I just uploaded every time. I don't think I need to spell out that this is horrifically inefficient.
  • The "one photo only" restriction meant I had to rely on the old edit page to upload additional photos. What will happen when that old edit page goes away?
  • At one point I was going to add in a smiley to enhance what I was saying in a log, but decided not to bother when I remembered that I'd have to go digging through the Help Center to figure out what the code to do so was. At this point, Markdown and smileys have effectively been deprecated and I don't expect to see much of them in any future logs, including my own.
  • When I loaded up the "Compose" page for some DNF drafts, the log type selector flashed up as "Found it" briefly before switching to DNF. It almost seemed like the page had to sequentially load all the possible log types and cycled through them in order starting with "Found it" until DNF loaded and was available for the page to select. It was strange to click the "Compose" link for a DNF log and the first thing you see is "Found it". It made me pause for a couple of seconds to make sure I was really going to be logging a DNF, which disrupted my focus.
  • Several times I went to click on the cache name only to mistakenly head towards the CO's name because it all looks like one entity. Some kind of differentiation between these two links and the word "by" is badly needed.

In summary, when the log I was submitting was just some plain-text sentences and wasn't going to have any photos added, the process went fairly smoothly with a few relatively-minor but reoccurring issues. However, as soon as there was something different about a log, things quickly became cumbersome. For this reason, I expect logs will tend to become very plain with few (and uncaptioned) photos, which will be a big loss to the caching community. I'll stick with the new form for now (not that I have much of a choice, logging from Drafts) and will work with the old workarounds as necessary while those are still available, but I'm worried about what will happen as more changes are made.

 

BTW, the trackable I moved to my collection finally disappeared from the new logging page. I don't know when it did, so I don't know how long it took, but it was somewhere between 3 hours and 3 days. Anywhere in that time range would be unacceptable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15